"[H]omer" <spam@xxxxxxx> wrote in news:tq1r95-ng2.ln1@xxxxxxxxxx:
> Jesper Lund Stocholm wrote:
>> "[H]omer" <spam@xxxxxxx> wrote in news:l1ip95-r7p.ln1@xxxxxxxxxx:
>
>>> So you do not agree that the "97.86%" vote represents purely
>>> negative votes, but you assert that it may also include abstentions
>>
>> No - I have not discussed the individual numbers. I have just said
>> that I do not agree that an "Abstain"-vote can be regarded as
>> "against a change to the text"
>
> So do you, or do you not, think that figures for the Indian vote
> represent a rejection of those changes?
AFAIR the Indians were cited on voting 100% either dissaprove, abstain or
not at all. I am not commenting on the distribution of Indian votes in the
three categories since that is a matter of ISO/IEC.
>>> Therefore your scepticism, based on India's apparent rejection of
>>> OOXML,
>>
>> India has not rejected OOXML by its vote.
>
> You snipped the part where I speculated that you thought India had not
> in fact rejected it.
Someone posted the list of votes where India was cited as voting 100%
either dissaprove or abstain. After this Roy claimed that India had been
bribed by Microsoft. I just didn't understand this, since Roy did not
initially back up his claim with a reference.
> So do you, or do you not accept the possibility that Microsoft's bribe
> successfully achieved its objective of influencing the Indian vote,
> given that you conclude that India's final ballot figure does not
> represent a rejection of the proposals?
What do you want me to say? Everything is possible.
>> The BRM was not about supporting/opposing OOXML but about improving
>> the text.
>
> That's rather a euphemism, isn't it?
Why?
> Therefore couldn't it be argued that abstentions might just as easily be
> an act of protest against a standards proposition which delegates
> disagree with?
Yes - and it could be interpreted the other way. I am not saying that
either is the truth for a specific comment. I am saying that only focusing
on a single interpretation as representing the only truth is wrong (since
there are other interpretations).
After all, the participants in this process are NBs who
> voted "disapprove" in the 2nd of September ballot.
And also the ones voting "Yes".
> And indeed, as I pointed out before, the reasons for those participants'
> abstention is highly significant, since in many instances it may signify
> an inability to adequately address the overly complex and long-winded
> specifications of this proposed standard. That /should/ have been taken
> into account when considering the final outcome of the BRM. In this
> instance, I believe an abstention /is/ a vote of no confidence, and
> therefore a rejection of the fast-track proposal.
Ok - you are naturally entitled to believe what you want.
> Was this issue ever
> even discussed by ISO, at the BRM or at any other time?
As reported elsewhere we spent the better part of a whole day debating
precicely the ballot itself, the choices and their meaning.
> Would you say then that those previous dissenters, who subsequently
> voted to /approve/ "changes to the text", were in fact /not/ endorsing
> OOXML with that approval?
I'll say it again: The BRM was not about approving/dissaproving DIS 29500.
It was about fixing errors/flaws/inaccuracies in it.
> If not, then what was the point of their
> participation?
To improve the specification.
> Call me cynical, but the idea that this was only an exercise in
> "improving the text" makes it sound as though acceptance was a forgone
> conclusion, and that this process was nothing but a formality destined
> to lead to the inevitable acceptance of this proposal.
>
> Please tell me the BRM was about more than just fixing typos and
> bureaucratic formalities.
Of course it was.
> It is my understanding that the "comments" in question ranged from
> trivialities like spelling mistakes, through to very serious concerns
> over interoperability and proprietary extensions. Were any of the more
> serious issues ever discussed at the BRM, or was this just a proof
> reading exercise?
The reason why we managed to fix such a small number of concrete Responses
was indeed that we spent a lot of time debating the "real", big issues as
interoperability, conformance, scope, deprecation, bitmasks, date-systems,
password-hashing, content embedding, localization (support for
bidirectional text), measurement of lengths, size etc, etc etc.
> This is not some rural council meeting debating the relative merits of
> replacing metal dustbins with plastic wheelie bins, it is an issue of
> international interest, where the public have a right to know what is
> discussed; what is decided; and how it is decided.
Yeah, well ... ISO doesn't work this way. It also didn't work this way when
ODF was passed through the exact same commitee. I don't on principle see
why it is suddenly a problem now. Are you by this saying that OOXML is more
important to "the world" than ODF? I do not agree with this.
> The debates in the British Houses of Parliament, where issues of
> national interest are addressed, are broadcast verbatim every day on
> television, and yet the discussions around the proposals for the OOXML
> standard somehow needed to be discussed behind closed doors?
>
> I find that deeply suspicious, and so far you have provided no
> justification for it whatsoever.
I am not trying as much to justify it - I am simply saying that it's just
the way it is.
> This was not /just another/ meeting, this was a very high profile event
> that could potentially affect the outcome of document interoperability
> for years to come. That is very much in the public interest, and
> /should/ have been open to public scrutiny. Again, as I stated, the fact
> that it was /not/ is deeply suspicious, and leaves a question-mark over
> the integrity of the ISO; the BRM participants; the BRM process itself;
> the implications for the final outcome of the OOXML fast-track
> proposition; and indeed the credibility of the proposed OOXML standard
> itself, including its architects and the company that pays them.
...
--
Jesper Lund Stocholm
http://idippedut.dk
|
|
